1 For a full survey of scholarship surrounding the De octo quaestionibus , see Gorman, Michael, “Bede's VIII Quaestiones and Carolingian Biblical Scholarship,” Revue Bénédictine 109 (1999): 32–74 (in particular 54-59). On the reference to Theodore of Canterbury, see Lapidge, Michael and Bischoff, Bernhard, eds., Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1994), 41-42 and 160 n. 116. On the description of a manuscript illumination, see Whitelock, Dorothy, After Bede , Lecture, Jarrow (Newcastle and Jarrow, 1960), 5-6; and Henderson, George, Bede and the Visual Arts, Jarrow Lecture (Jarrow, 1980), 7. On the liturgical importance of a passage from the De octo quaestionibus , see Frank, Hieronymus, “Die Bezeugung eines Karsamstagsresponsoriums durch Beda Venerabilis,” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 16 (1974): 150-53. On the De octo quaestionibus and Bede's exegetical method, see Jones, C. W., “Some Introductory Remarks on Bede's Commentary on Genesis,” Sacris Erudiri 19 (1969-70): 147-51. I am indebted to Babcock, Robert G., Goffart, Walter A., Winroth, Anders, and the anonymous reviewer, all of whom responded to drafts of this paper with generous advice and criticism. I am also grateful for a stipend from the Landesstiftung Baden-Württemberg, which supported me at the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg during the latter phases of work on this project.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Herwagen, Johann, Opera Bedae Venerabilis (Basel, 1563). The Aliquot quaestionum liber is reprinted in PL 93:455-78. For the last seven questions and their manuscript source(s), see below.Google Scholar

3 Oudin, Casimir, Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis , 3 vols. (Frankfurt, 1722), 1:1706, reprinted in PL 90:95.Google Scholar

4 Giles, J. A., The Complete Works of Venerable Bede in the Original Latin… , 12 vols. (London, 1843-44).Google Scholar

5 Lehmann, Paul, “Wert und Echtheit einer Beda abgesprochenen Schrift,” Sb. Akad. Munich, 4. Abhandlung (1919): 1–21.Google Scholar

6 Bischoff, Bernhard, “Zur Kritik der Heerwagenschen Ausgabe von Bedas Werken,” in Mittelalterliche Studien , 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1966-67), 1:112–17.Google Scholar

7 Weisweiler, Heinrich, Das Schrifttum der Schule Anselms von Laon und Wilhelms von Champeaux in deutschen Bibliotheken (Münster, 1936).Google Scholar

8 Laistner, M. L. W. and King, H. H., A Hand-List of Bede Manuscripts (Ithaca, 1943), 155–58.Google Scholar

9 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 32–74. Gorman collated Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale Ms. 27 (V); Cambrai, Bibliothèque municipale Ms. 364 (C); and Bruges, Staatsbibliotheek Ms. 34 (B).Google Scholar

10 Trent Foley, W. and Holder, Arthur G., Bede: A Biblical Miscellany (Liverpool, 1999), 149–65. Their introduction, 145-47, is a helpful addition to scholarship on the text.Google Scholar

11 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 33–43.Google Scholar

12 This is the only other question treatise attributed to Bede. It was edited by Hurst, D., CCL 119 (Turnhout, 1962), 291-322. Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 45, remarks that “Bede's XXX Quaestiones and his VIII Quaestiones are anomalous, rare examples of the question and answer genre without the questions. Bede provides only his answers — what we have called here the quaestiones; whatever questions he received from Nothelm were omitted.” This is not strictly accurate; in the XXX Quaestiones the questions are restated, indirectly, in Bede's answers.Google Scholar

13 This recalls the format of Bede's XXX Quaestiones (ed. Hurst, , CCL 119, 289–322), where successive “questions” are also introduced with the word “Quod.” Yet in the XXX Quaestiones, Bede tends to use passive constructions (Quod dicitur, Quod dictum est, Quod scriptum est, etc.), perhaps reflecting the manner in which Nothelm posed the questions to him.Google Scholar

14 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 42.Google Scholar

15 Meyvaert, Paul, ‘“In the Footsteps of the Fathers’: The Date of Bede's Thirty Questions on the Book of Kings to Nothelm,” in The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus , ed. Klingshirn, William E. and Vessey, Mark (Ann Arbor, 1997), 267–86 at 277 n. 33.Google Scholar

16 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 34: “the eight chapter headings in the index at the beginning of the [Q manuscripts] … are very similar to those Bede composed for the XXX Quaestiones; there is no reason to suspect they were not written by him.” Google Scholar

17 Ibid., 42: “[the S recension] must derive from the same series of works as found in the … Saint Amand [i.e., the Q] group of manuscripts.” Google Scholar

18 Catalogued in de Poorter, A., Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque publique de la ville de Bruges , Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques de Belgique (Paris and Gembloux, 1934), 2:39–40.Google Scholar

19 Catalogued in ibid., 52–54.Google Scholar

20 Catalogue général des manuscrits latins , ed. Lauer, Philipe, 2 vols. (Paris, 1940), 1:30.Google Scholar

21 Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques des départements , Quarto series (Paris, 1878), 6:174–75.Google Scholar

22 Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France: Départements (Paris, 1894), 25:202–3.Google Scholar

23 Catalogue general … Départements (Paris, 1891), 17:133–34.Google Scholar

24 Catalogue general … Départements (Paris, 1894), 24:330–31.Google Scholar

25 Catalogue général des manuscrits latins , 2:348–49.Google Scholar

26 Weisweiler, , Das Schrifttum (n. 7 above), 56–57. Weisweiler provides a critical edition of the text corresponding to Aliquot quaestionum liber questions 13-15 (PL 93:466-78), at 281-311.Google Scholar

27 The catalogue description in the Catalogus Codicum Manu Scriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis: 2.2 Codices num. 11001-15026 completens , ed. Halm, Karl, von Laubmon, Georg, Meyer, Wilhelm (Munich, 1876), IV / II, 183, is inadequate. Weisweiler's remains the best description of the codex in print.Google Scholar

28 Bischoff, , “Zur Kritik” (n. 6 above), 115.Google Scholar

29 Ibid. Google Scholar

30 Weisweiler, , Das Schrifttum , 61–62.Google Scholar

31 Levison, Wilhelm, “Modern Editions of Bede,” Durham University Journal 37 (1945): 79.Google Scholar

32 Bischoff, , “Zur Kritik,” 115, reports that one of the early-modern hands provides his own pagination in the lower-right corner of the folios, beginning with 1 on fol. 46r, and continuing through 20, on fol. 65r. These twenty folios correspond to three gatherings (fols. 46-49 are a binion, and fols. 50-65 are two quaternions). Weisweiler (Das Schrifttum, 62) reports that the binding shows that these gatherings were once removed from the manuscript and later reinserted. His conclusion is that they were taken out and sent to the printer, which would explain why they should have received separate foliation. Yet compare Bischoff's speculation (“Zur Kritik,” 115 n. 11): “Die Zählung kann auch mit der Absicht an den Rand geschrieben sein, eine verschuldete Unvollständigkeit … weniger auffällig erscheinen zu lassen.” Google Scholar

33 Questions 9-15, which take up about fifteen columns in PL, occupy sixteen folios in Clm. 14506 (fols. 48r-63v). A single PL column thus contains roughly the same amount of text as the recto and verso of a folio in Clm. 14506. The De octo quaestionibus occupies a little less than seven columns in the PL, which would probably have required about an equal number of folios.Google Scholar

34 Herwagen's manuscript sources have remained unidentified in other instances as well. See Jackson, Peter, “Herwagen's Lost Manuscript of the Collectanea,” in Bayless, Martha and Lapidge, Michael, eds., Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae (Dublin, 1998), 101–21, for a discussion of the lost manuscript from which Herwagen edited an important early medieval florilegium. Many of Herwagen's sources were likely destroyed or pulled apart in the printing process, as Jackson suggests (101).Google Scholar

35 Bede's XXX Quaestiones are dedicated to Nothelm; thus “ad eundem” indicates that the De octo quaestionibus are also for Nothelm.Google Scholar

36 C omits the second de. Google Scholar

37 A second hand in C adds et before ego. Google Scholar

38 Herwagen's edition contains no chapter table, and he provides his questions with headings that bear no relationship to the chapter titles in our manuscripts: (1) “De stella et magis,” (2) “De eo quod dicit Apostolus: A Judaeis quinquies quadragenas una minus accepi,” (3) “Deo eo quod ibidem dicit Apostolus: Nocte et die in profundo maris fui,” (4) “De eo quod idem dicit Apostolus: Mihi vindicta et ego retribuam dicit Dominus, etc.,” (5) “De illo ejusdem Apostoli: Vnusquisque in suo sensu abundet,” (6) “De verbis David quibus Saul et Jonathan filium interfectos ploravit,” (7) “Quid sit in psalmo: Ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer,” (8) “De reauctione arcae Domini de domo Aminadab per regem David.” A sixteenth-century hand writes headings for the seven last “questions” of Herwagen's edition in the margins of Clm. 14506. See the plate in Weisweiler (Das Schrifttum, after p. 64), which reproduces part of Clm. 14506, fol. 50r. Next to the text corresponding to Herwagen's “Quaestio 10,” a sixteenth-century hand writes the Herwagian chapter heading in the margin: “Quaestio 10. De delictis hominum et eorum poena.” The same hand also records headings for the other six texts.Google Scholar

39 Rubric in B₁ : “Explicit expositio uenerabilis Bede presbyteri de libris regum.” Rubric in P₁ : “Explicit expositio uenerabilis Bede presbyteri.” Google Scholar

40 Whether or not it is a sermon, this term fits the Putant quidam far better; we have already seen that this text does not appear to have been written in answer to any obvious question. Google Scholar

41 References here and throughout are to the edition in Appendix 2, where abbreviations are also resolved. Google Scholar

42 For example: Bede, , In Marcum, prol., ed. Hurst, D., Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars II: opera exegetica 3, CCL 120 (Turnhout, 1960), 432: “in patrum uenerabilium exemplis”; De Temporum Ratione, praef., ed. Jones, C. W., Bedae Venerabilis, Pars VI: opera didascalica 2, CCL 123B (Turnhout, 1977), 263: ”… perspectis patrum uenerabilium scriptis….” Google Scholar

43 These are the entries for chapters 1, 4, 6, and 14. Google Scholar

44 The initial decorates the first word of the first question, which is Quod. The original initial, erased but still visible, was simply red, about 15mm in diameter. It is replaced with a large, decorated initial, about 60mm wide. Google Scholar

45 This chapter table is ed. Hurst, , CCL 119, 294. Hurst's edition does not depart significantly from the text of our S manuscripts, except in orthographical matters. Google Scholar

46 B₂ omits archa. Google Scholar

47 Orthography from N. Google Scholar

48 P₁ omits (XXVIIII) ad dextram partem — (XXX) Hierusalem, through homoeoteleuton. This error may be behind the omission we noted above in N. This would imply that N and P₁ derive from a separate, common archetype. Yet there is no further evidence to support such a relationship. Google Scholar

49 Presumably he then added a shortened version “De epiphania” at the head of the Putant quidam. Google Scholar

50 This is the only evidence of contamination from the S recension in a Q manuscript. Google Scholar

51 The following variants are cases in which h has a variant in common with a manuscript not descended from N: Michi uindictam: 65 subiungit] subiunxit B₁B₂ h Interim quaesisti: 9 loqueretur] B₁B₂P₁D h, nobis add. N ^sup.l. VCEP₂ D Putant quidam: 42 tum] B₁B₂ h, tunt N ^a.c. tunc N ^p.c. VCEP ₂ Congregauit autem: 9 accessit] accesserit B₁B₂ h None of these constitutes good evidence of a textual relationship, and two are likely cases of convergence through correction. The variant accesserit is a classicizing correction; the verb governs a relative clause of characteristic. And the variant loqueretur (nobis) in Interim quaesisti, line 9, involves a scriptural quotation; here most Vulgate recensions omit nobis as well. Google Scholar

52 Bede, XXX Quaestiones , praef., ed. Hurst, , CCL 119, 29.Google Scholar

53 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones” (n. 1 above), 35–36, suggests that the texts of the De octo quaestionibus may indeed be the simpler answers referenced by Bede's prefatory letter. Yet Bede's letter strongly implies that Nothelm's simpler questions all concerned Kings; on this point see Meyvaert, , “The Date of Bede's Thirty Questions” (n. 15 above), 277 n. 33. Of our eight texts, only the Congregauit autem and the Quod interrogasti actually address Kings. I think both are unlikely to be the answers to Nothelm's simpler questions. Below I suggest that the Congregauit autem, which does not answer any obvious question, is likely a short sermon, and that the Quod interrogasti — of all our texts, the only real answer to a question on Kings — may derive from the same source as the Interim quaesisti (which addresses not Kings, but Psalms). Probably Bede's answers to Nothelm's simpler questions never circulated outside of a personal letter to Nothelm.Google Scholar

54 Each of these treatises is attested in at least two branches of the stemma, and so might be traced to the archetype. In Tobiam occurs in three branches of the tradition: β (=B₁ and B₂ ), D and N; the XXX Quaestiones also occurs in three: β, P₁ and N; and De templo occurs in two: D and N. Only N and its descendants actually have the three-text combination. Google Scholar

55 I can find only one other manuscript containing In Tobiam, De templo and the XXX Quaestiones. This is London, Lambeth Palace Ms. 191, from the twelfth century. The thorough description by Montague Rhodes James ( A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace: The Medieval Manuscripts [Cambridge, 1932], 298–300) shows that it does not contain any of the eight texts studied here. Manuscripts containing any two of the three Old Testament commentaries are somewhat more common.Google Scholar

56 “obnixe flagito, ut … Bedae … vestri similiter quaestiones in utrumque testamentum … dirigatis.” Ep. 62, ed. Dümmler, Ernst, MGH, Epp. VI, 62 (1925). Dümmler dates the letter to 849; Levillain, Leon (“Étude sur les lettres de Loup de Ferrières,” Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes 63 [1902]: 114–16) dates it instead to 852. Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 32-33; and Lehmann, , “Wert und Echtheit” (n. 5 above), 21 n. 2, both wonder whether Lupus's request in this letter was for the De octo quaestionibus. Google Scholar

57 PL 102:13-552. Smaragdus uses the Putant quidam at 72D-73B (“Constat quippe — est illis;” lines 11-40 in the appended edition, with many omissions), and the A Iudeis at 105C-106A (“Quod dicit — impleret”; lines 1-18, also with omissions). Lehmann (“Wert und Echtheit,” 7) first noticed Smaragdus's use of our text; Gorman (“Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 50) identifies the precise passages in PL. For the date of the Liber comitis see Rädle, Fidel, Studien zu Smaragd von Saint-Mihiel (Munich, 1974), 21 and 130-32.Google Scholar

58 For these commentaries I use the text of BNF Ms. lat. 12289, which according to Gorman is “the oldest surviving manuscript” containing all of Claudius's commentaries on the Pauline epistles. See Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 49 n. 54, where the relevant loci in the manuscript are cited, and also the list of manuscripts in Gorman, Michael, “The Comentary on Genesis of Claudius Turin and Biblical Studies under Louis the Pious,” Speculum 72 (1997): 322–23. In Ms. lat. 12289, the A Iudeis excerpt is at fol. 189r^a, lines 15-20 (“Praeceptum namque — iaceat,” lines 4-7 in the appended edition); the Nocte et die is at fol. 189r^b line 13 through 189v^a line 23 (“Verum si — a malo,” lines 30-53); the Michi uindictam is at fol. 66r^a line 5 through 66r^b line 12 (the entire text); and the Vnusquisque on fol. 70r^b line 15 through 70v^a line 7 (again the entire text). The passage that Claudius omits from the A Iudeis discusses a manuscript illumination, and probably ran contrary to Claudius's iconoclastic convictions. The commentary date comes from Dümmler, who edits the prefaces to Claudius's commentaries on the Pauline epistles in MGH Epp. IV, 596-602 (Epp. 3-6). Lehmann, , “Wert und Echtheit,” 7-8, mistakenly identifies Claudius as the author of the commentary on Paul's letters to the Corinthians that is printed under the name of Atto of Vercelli in PL 134:287-492. Lehmann was working from the study of Eduard Riggenbach (Die ältesten lateinischen Kommentare zum Hebräerbrief [Leipzig, 1907]), and over-generalized from Riggenbach's conclusions. In fact the commentaries on Romans and the letters to the Corinthians in PL 134:125-492 may be called Atto's, though they are nevertheless dependent upon unpublished commentaries of Claudius of Turin. See Wemple, Suzanne Fonay, Atto of Vercelli: Church, State, and Christian Society in Tenth Century Italy (Rome, 1979), 23-26, on the commentaries associated with Atto in Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare Ms. XXXIX (40). This manuscript, copied at the order of Atto, contains primarily direct copies of Claudius's commentaries on the Pauline epistles. Only the commentaries on Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians may be considered Atto's own work. Atto knew of the first four Solutiones texts only through Claudius.Google Scholar

59 PL 104:623-834. The passage dependent upon the Quod interrogasti is at cols. 688C-689A (“Sciri debet — comburendos relinquant”; lines 8-25 in the appended edition); the use of the Congregauit autem is at cols. 694A-697A (“Congregauit autem — poenas luit”; lines 1-7 and 18-115) and 698B (“Sacerdos quoque — morte purgauit;” lines 7-8). As in the case of the A Iudeis, Claudius avoids the passage discussing images in his excerpt from the Quod interrogasti. Lehmann (“Wert und Echtheit,” 7) first identified Claudius's use of our text; Gorman (“Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 48-50) gives the precise citation in PL. I also date this commentary from Dümmler's edition of the prefatory letter (MGH Epp. IV, 608-9 [Ep. 10]). Gorman suggests that this prefatory letter may also allude briefly to the Congregauit autem; presumably he is comparing Congregauit autem lines 7-8 (“inconsiderate temeritate”) with lines 9-10 in Dümmler's edition of the letter (“illicita presumptione”). Both passages reference the temeritas or praesumptio of Uzzah, who is killed upon touching the Ark of the Covenant (2 Kings 6:6-7). Claudius's commentary, known like Bede's as the XXX Quaestiones, addresses questions posed by the abbot Theodemir of Psalmody (Dümmler, MGH Epp. IV, 605-6 [Ep. 8]).Google Scholar

60 PL 109:9-280. The Quod interrogasti is used at col. 73C-D (“Montes Gelboe — exigente meruissent”); the Congregauit autem occurs at cols. 83C-86C (“Congregauit autem — mortis exspectant”; this corresponds to the entire text in our edition). Hrabanus's use was first identified by Lehmann, (“Wert und Echtheit,” 7); Gorman, (“Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 50) cites the exact passages. Gorman, (ibid.) also notes that Angelomus of Luxeuil uses the Congregauit autem (his commentary on Kings is in PL 115:243-552; the Congregauit autem is at cols. 348C-351C), and that Angelomus knew the text only through Hrabanus. This view is supported by Cantelli, Silvia ( Angelomo e la scuola esegetica di Luxeuil , 2 vols. [Spoleto, 1990], 1:311), who says that “per i libri II (=2 Sam), III (=1 Reg), IV (=2 Reg) [i.e., where Angelomus uses the Congregauit autem] il rapporto tra i due testi è stretto a tal punto che per larga parte del III e per il IV si può parlare di un solo commento.” I have collated the text of Angelomus with that of Hrabanus and found no obstacles to this interpretation.Google Scholar

61 The commentary on 2 Corinthians is in PL 117:605-8; Haimo uses the A Iudeis at col. 655A and the Nocte et die just below, at col. 655C. The commentary on Romans is in PL 117:361-508; Haimo uses the Michi uindictam at col. 477C-D, and the Vnusquisque at cols. 487D-488A. Haimo's use of our texts was first noted by Lehmann, (“Wert und Echtheit,” 7–8); the exact passages are cited in Gorman (“Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 50-51). Lehmann, again working from the study of Riggenbach, (Die ältesten lateinischen Kommentare) thought the commentary might belong to Remigius of Auxerre. In fact, though the commentary on Hebrews is not considered to be Haimo's, the commentaries on the other Pauline epistles are genuine. Cf. Iogna-Prat, Dominique, “L'œuvre d'Haymon d'Auxerre: État de la question,” in L'école carolingienne d'Auxerre de Murethach à Remi, 830-908: Entretiens d'Auxerre 1989 , ed. Iogna-Prat, Colette Jeudy, and Lobrichon, Guy (Paris, 1989), 157-79, at 161. I date the commentaries according to the period of Haimo's literary activity, for which see Contreni, John J., “Haimo of Auxerre, Abbot of Sasceium (Cessy-les-Bois) and a New Sermon on I John V.4-10,” Revue Bénédictine 85 (1975): 303-320, at 310.Google Scholar

62 For the bibliography on this manuscript see Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 55–56 n. 75. The excerpt from A Iudeis is on fol. 40r.Google Scholar

63 Bede, , In Lucam, prol., ed. Hurst, , CCL 120, 7; and Bede, , In Marcum, prol., ibid., 432. On these see Laistner, M. L. W., “Source Marks in Bede Manuscripts,” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933): 350–54.Google Scholar

64 This list is from Rädle, , Studien zu Smaragd von Saint-Mihiel , 138.Google Scholar

65 On Smaragdus's use of “Autorensiglen,” see ibid., 137–42.Google Scholar

66 Cf. Hrabanus's letter from 829 to the abbot Hilduin of Saint-Denis, ed. Dümmler, , MGH Epp. V, 402-3 (Ep. 14): “Praenotavique in marginibus paginarum aliquorum eorum nomina, ubi sua propria verba sunt; ubi vero sensum eorum meis verbis expressi aut ubi iuxta sensus eorum similitudinem, prout divina gratia mihi concedere dignata est, de novo dictavi, M litteram Mauri nomen exprimentem, quod meus magister beatae memoriae Albinus mihi indidit, prenotare curavi, ut diligens lector sciat, quid quisque de suo proferat, quidve in singulis sentiendum sit, decernat.” Google Scholar

67 Claudius of Turin in the 811 prefatory letter to his Genesis commentary, ed. Dümmler, , MGH Epp. IV, 592 (Ep. 1): “Et ne ab aliquibus praesumptor et temerarius diiudicarer, quod [ab] alieno armario sumpserim tela, uniuscuiusque doctoris nomen cum suis characteribus, sicut et beatus fecit presbiter Beda, subter in paginis adnotavi.” But in a letter of 9 March 823 that prefaces his commentary on Leviticus (ed. ibid, 603), Claudius responds in this way to Theodemir's request for a text with source marks: “Quod vero sententiam uniuscuiusque doctoris in paginis adnotare praecipis in expositionibus nostris: neminem hoc fecisse legi, excepto beatissimum Bedam, quod quidem nec ille amplius quam in duobus codicibus fecit, in expositione videlicet evangelistarum Marci et Lucae. Quod ego ideo omisi facere, quia sententias quorundam, quas adnotaveram prius sub nomine aliorum, diligentius perquirens, aliorum eas esse repperi postea.” Google Scholar

68 Lehmann, (“Wert und Echtheit,” 15 with n. 1) also notices the similarities between the text of Smaragdus and Ms. lat. 12949, for he considers the possibility that the florilegium text could have been drawn from Smaragdus. Yet he discounts it, claiming that elsewhere in Ms. lat. 12949 there are resonances with Nocte et die, a text not employed by Smaragdus. This, he reasons, suggests that the compilers of the florilegium had independent access to our texts (or at least some of them). Lehmann refers his readers to Cousin, Victor, Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard pour servir à l'histoire de la philosophie scolastique en France (Paris, 1836), 624. Here Cousin prints portions of Ms. lat. 12949; on page 622 he gives the A Iudeis excerpt from fol. 40r. On page 624 Cousin prints text from slightly later in the manuscript; yet I can find nothing on that page at all related to the text of the Nocte et die. Lehmann seems to have been mistaken.Google Scholar

69 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones” (n. 1 above), 49 n. 56.Google Scholar

70 The Hrabanus borrowing, we will see, is very important. To control for the unreliability of the only edition, I have compared the text in PL with Sankt-Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek Ms. 284, a tenth-century manuscript of the first two books of Hrabanus's commentary. Images of this manuscript are available online through the Codices Electronici Sangallenses project, at http://www.cesg.unifr.ch. There is no significant variation between the text in PL and Ms. 284.Google Scholar

71 Though three ninth-century commentaries (including that of Hrabanus) are known to use the Congregauit autem, Hrabanus's is by far the closest to our manuscript text. The commentary of Claudius has a different arrangement of the opening lines of the Congregauit autem and lacks a passage found both in our manuscripts and in Hrabanus's commentary. The commentary of Angelomus, which is heavily dependent upon Hrabanus, also departs from both our manuscript text and Hrabanus in several places. The most significant Angelomus variant occurs for the text in lines 90-91 of our edition, in a passage which says that Michol, “quae, ob figurandam instabilitatem carnalium, aqua omnis interpretatur, non uxor Dauid sed filia Saul appellatur.” The translation is from Jerome, , Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum , 1 Reg. (ed. Antin, P., CCL 72 [Turnhout, 1959], 104). In Angelomus the name of Michol is not translated; instead, the text reads that Michol, “ob figurandam instabilitatem carnalium, a qua omnis uiri iniquitas procedit, praeter morem non uxor Dauid sed filia Saul appellatur …” (PL 115:350D).Google Scholar

72 Claudius of Turin may also have responded to the problem of making the Congregauit autem conform to the format of his commentary. This would explain why his excerpt appears to rework the opening passage of the Congregauit autem, as we have it in our manuscripts and Hrabanus's. Alternatively, it is possible that he simply knew a different version of the Congregauit autem, or that he and Hrabanus knew the same text, but Hrabanus, and not Claudius, modified it in citation. This is discussed below.Google Scholar

73 Bede, , Historia Ecclesiastica 5.24, ed. Plummer, C., Venerabilis Baedae: Opera Historica , 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896), 1:357–60.Google Scholar

74 A look at Laistner and King, Hand-List of Bede Manuscripts (n. 8 above), shows that almost every certainly genuine work of Bede is represented by a manuscript tradition stretching back to the ninth or tenth century. The only exceptions are a few of Bede's letters (cf. Laistner, and King, , Hand-List , 20). The transmission of Bede's hymns has also been tenuous, as Laistner notes (Hand-List, 122-23).Google Scholar

75 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 46.Google Scholar

76 Lehmann, , “Wert und Echtheit,” 16.Google Scholar

77 Cuthwin's dates are only known from references in a few sources; cf. Levison, Wilhelm, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1949), 133 n. 1, where it is shown that he likely held office sometime between 716 and 731 — that is, within Bede's lifetime.Google Scholar

78 See PL 117:655: “Refert autem beatus Beda librum delatum esse a Roma per Chidonium orientalium angelorum [sic] antistitem.” Google Scholar

79 On the relationship between the commentaries of Claudius of Turin and Hrabanus Maurus on Kings, see Hablitzel, J. B., “Hrabanus Maurus und Klaudius von Turin,” Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 27 (1906): 74–85 and 38 (1917): 538-52.Google Scholar

80 Lines 2-7 (“In historia — paenas luit”) are placed directly at the end of the Congregauit autem, as a sort of summing up (PL 104:697A). The following sentence, at lines 7-8 (“Sacerdos quoque — purgauit”) occurs still later, after more than a column of other material (PL 104:698B).Google Scholar

81 But see Hrabanus's letter to Hilduin, cited above, where Hrabanus is explicit that he only sourced passages to other authors that he did not significantly alter. Paraphrases and similar alterations he sourced to himself, with the marginal letter M. This is some reason to think that Hrabanus's excerpt closely reflects the text that he had access to. I have already mentioned the difficulties of incorporating the Congregauit autem in a verse-by-verse commentary on Kings; the alternate form of the introductory passages that we find in Claudius may well be his own efforts to incorporate the text, as I suggested above.Google Scholar

82 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones” (n. 1 above), 46. The passage is from Bede, In Samuhelem 2.10, ed. Hurst, , CCL 119 (Turnhout, 1962), 93, lines 1040-49. I follow Gorman and place the passages in parallel columns for comparison: Quod interrogasti lines 38-45: Sicut ergo in paginis librorum quouis colore et mala possumus et bona absque ulla reprehensione figurare, ita etiam in parte significationum per quaelibet hominum gesta et bona rectissime et mala possunt exprimi, quamuis et multo saepius contingat et multo dulcius audiatur bona per bona et mala figurari per mala; sicut autem in pictura parietum neque obscurum Ethiopem candido neque candidi corporis siue capilli Saxonem atro decet colore depingi, ita in <distributione> meritorum iuxta suum quisque opus recipiet. Bede: Et per bonos ergo bona et per malos mala et per malos bona et per bonos mala libere pro locis et temporibus figurantur nec tamen in praemiorum receptione boni nisi bona nec mali nisi sola quae gessere secum sua mala referunt, quo modo unis licet eisdemque coloribus scripti niger Aethiops et Saxo candidus cuius sit quisque coloris indigena possunt facile statim et sine ulla controuersia discerni, at aliter in pictura ubi nisi sui quisque coloris sicut et habitus deformetur mendacii prorsus impudentis tabula quae imagines promisit arguitur. The texts are clearly related, but I see no way of determining whether one is derived from the other, or whether both were composed by the same author. meritorum iuxta suum quisque opus recipiet. Bede: Et per bonos ergo bona et per malos mala et per malos bona et per bonos mala libere pro locis et temporibus figurantur nec tamen in praemiorum receptione boni nisi bona nec mali nisi sola quae gessere secum sua mala referunt, quo modo unis licet eisdemque coloribus scripti niger Aethiops et Saxo candidus cuius sit quisque coloris indigena possunt facile statim et sine ulla controuersia discerni, at aliter in pictura ubi nisi sui quisque coloris sicut et habitus deformetur mendacii prorsus impudentis tabula quae imagines promisit arguitur. The texts are clearly related, but I see no way of determining whether one is derived from the other, or whether both were composed by the same author.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gorman,+,+“Bede's+VIII+Quaestiones”+(n.+1+above),+46.+The+passage+is+from+Bede,+In+Samuhelem+2.10,+ed.+Hurst,+,+CCL+119+(Turnhout,+1962),+93,+lines+1040-49.+I+follow+Gorman+and+place+the+passages+in+parallel+columns+for+comparison:+Quod+interrogasti+lines+38-45:+Sicut+ergo+in+paginis+librorum+quouis+colore+et+mala+possumus+et+bona+absque+ulla+reprehensione+figurare,+ita+etiam+in+parte+significationum+per+quaelibet+hominum+gesta+et+bona+rectissime+et+mala+possunt+exprimi,+quamuis+et+multo+saepius+contingat+et+multo+dulcius+audiatur+bona+per+bona+et+mala+figurari+per+mala;+sicut+autem+in+pictura+parietum+neque+obscurum+Ethiopem+candido+neque+candidi+corporis+siue+capilli+Saxonem+atro+decet+colore+depingi,+ita+in++meritorum+iuxta+suum+quisque+opus+recipiet.+Bede:+Et+per+bonos+ergo+bona+et+per+malos+mala+et+per+malos+bona+et+per+bonos+mala+libere+pro+locis+et+temporibus+figurantur+nec+tamen+in+praemiorum+receptione+boni+nisi+bona+nec+mali+nisi+sola+quae+gessere+secum+sua+mala+referunt,+quo+modo+unis+licet+eisdemque+coloribus+scripti+niger+Aethiops+et+Saxo+candidus+cuius+sit+quisque+coloris+indigena+possunt+facile+statim+et+sine+ulla+controuersia+discerni,+at+aliter+in+pictura+ubi+nisi+sui+quisque+coloris+sicut+et+habitus+deformetur+mendacii+prorsus+impudentis+tabula+quae+imagines+promisit+arguitur.+The+texts+are+clearly+related,+but+I+see+no+way+of+determining+whether+one+is+derived+from+the+other,+or+whether+both+were+composed+by+the+same+author.>Google Scholar

83 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 45. The parallel passage is from Bede, , In Prouerbia Salomonis 3.30, ed. Hurst, D., CCL 119B, 142, lines 49-57. Again, I follow Gorman and give the texts alongside each other: Interim quaesisti, lines 17-24: Ignitum ergo “igne examinatum” siue “igne purgatum” intellige. Ex uno ergo Graeco quod est “pepyromenon,” utrumque Latine et ignitum et igne examinatum pro interpretum uoluntate translatum est. Nam et ubi dictum est, Eloquia Domini igne examinala, in Graeco unus sermo positus est, “pepyromena.” Ex quo etiam uerbo diriuatum est, Igne nos examinasti, quod quidam dixere, “Ignisti nos.” Ignitus autem siue igne examinatus est omnis sermo Dei, quia per illuminationem Sancti Spiritus sincera ac firma est ueritate subnixus. Bede Verum sollertius intuendum quia proprietatem Graeci sermonis quod est πεπυρωμένον Latina translatio uno uerbo non explicat. Vnde aliquando ignitum aliquando igne examinatum transfertur ut: Ignitum eloquium tuum uehementer, et: Argentum igne examinatum; quod utrumque in Graeco uno uerbo dicitur, πεπυρωμένον, et quod huic Salomonis sententiae simillimum sonat, Eloquia domini igne examinata, id est πεπυρωμένα, protector est omnium sperantium in se. Πεπυρωμένον ergo significat quod tamquam conflatum igne purgatum sit. The underlying source of the Greek citation in both passages is Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus super Psalmos, in Ps. 118, ed. Doignon, J., CCL 61A, 173, lines 4-7. The Interim quaesisti and Bede's commentary both emphasize the two possible Latin translations of the single Greek word πεπυρωμένον, whereas Hilary does not, so the parallels cannot be explained by the common source alone. While Bede's commentary borrows only the Greek citation, the Interim quaesisti contains further borrowings from Hilary. This explains a second set of apparently parallel passages noted Foley and Holder (A Biblical Miscellany [n. 10 above], 159 n. 1). These occur between Bede, In Cantica Canticorum , ed. Hurst, , CCL 119B:286, lines 604-6; and Interim quaesisti lines 9-11. In this case both passages are simply derived from Hilary's commentary, and there are no signs of independent relationship.Google Scholar

84 In this respect, they are similar to the parallel passages known in a few of Bede's genuine works. See Meyvaert, (“The Date of Bede's Thirty Questions” [n. 15 above], 270–73) for a discussion of parallel passages from Bede's XXX Quaestiones and his commentary on 1 Kings (In Samuhelem).Google Scholar

85 “Item librum epistularum ad diuersos: quarum de sex aetatibus saeculi una est; de mansionibus filiorum Israel una; una de eo, quod ait Isaias: ‘Et claudentur ibi in carcerem, et post dies multos uisitabantur’; de ratione bissexti una; de aequinoctio iuxta Anatolium una” (Bede, , Historiam Ecclesiasticam 5.24 [ed. Plummer, , 358–59]).Google Scholar

86 Morin, G., “Le receuil primitif des homélies de Bede sur l'Évangile,” Revue Bénédictine 9 (1892): 316–26. This homily collection is edited by Hurst, D., CGL 122 (Turnhout, 1955).Google Scholar

87 Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones,” 52–74 (biblical citations only); and Foley, and Holder, , A Biblical Miscellany, 149-65 (biblical citations and source references).Google Scholar

1 Laistner, M. L. W., who knew this text only from catalogue descriptions of three of our manuscripts (V, E, P₂), wondered whether it might be “the long passage at the end of one of Bede's Lenten sermons” and suggested that it might also exist in Hereford, Chapter Library Ms. O.9.VII, fol. 76r (A Hand-List of Bede Manuscripts [Ithaca, 1943], 78 with n. 35). The new catalogue description of this manuscript, Mynors, R. A. B. and Thomson, R. M., Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Hereford Cathedral Library (Cambridge, 1993), 62, gives an explicit for this text that instead suggests it comes from Bede's In Ezram et Nehemiam. Certainly it is not the Breuis explanatio discussed here. I have been able to find no other manuscripts of this treatise besides N, V, C, E and P₂. Google Scholar

1 Cuthwin was bishop of Dunwich sometime between 716 and 731. On his dates see Levison, , England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1949), 133 n. 1. His mention here provides the only means of dating the four Solutiones. Google Scholar

2 Here I follow the unanimous orthography of the manuscripts and print the Greek, τεσσαράκοντα παρὰ μίαν, in Latin letters. While Bede is known to have used a manuscript with dual Greek and Latin texts of the Acts of the Apostles for his Retractatio (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. Greek Ms. 35), he is not known to have had access to other books of the New Testament in Greek. It is worth considering whether this Greek citation, which does not appear to have any patristic antecedent, comes from Cuthwin's illustrated manuscript.Google Scholar

3 Theodore of Canterbury, originally from Tarsus, was archbishop of Canterbury from 669-90. On this reference and the teaching here associated with him, see Lapidge, and Bischoff, , eds., Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1994), 41–42 and 160 n. 116.Google Scholar

4 Cyzicus, today known as Erdek, is a city on the coast of the Sea of Marmara. See Bischoff, and Lapidge, , Biblical Commentaries , 41.Google Scholar

5 The verses discussed in this solutio (Rom. 12:19-20) also occur in Bede's collection of excerpts from Augustine on the Pauline epistles (as first noted by Gorman, , “Bede's VIII Quaestiones and Carolingian Biblical Scholarship,” Revue Bénédictine 109 [1999]: 32–74, at 46). Bede's unprinted Pauline collection uses an excerpt from Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos to explicate Rom. 12:19 (Ps. 78, §14, CCL 39, 1107-8, lines 11-42), and an excerpt from the De Doctrina Christiana for Rom. 12:20 (3.15-16, CCL 32, 91-92, lines 3-6 and 1-18). While both this solutio and Bede's two Augustinian excerpts provide broadly compatible interpretations of Rom. 12:19-20, I see no definite signs of a relationship between the two treatments.Google Scholar

6 This verse is from Phil. 3:15, and in fact does not follow the verse from Rom. 14:5 (“Vnusquisque in suo sensu abundet”). A marginal note in D (fol. 69r) notifies medieval readers of this discrepancy: “Sententia apostoli quam hic Beda exponit, id est Vnusquisque in suo sensu abundet, inuenitur in epistola ad Romanos. Illa uero quam cum bene subiungere testatur, id est Et siquid aliter sapitis et hoc quoque uobis Deus reuelabit, inuenitur in epistola ad Philippenses. Vnde manifestum est earn priori sententiae non subiungi, sicut hic dicit, sed istam: Qui sapit de Domino sapit, sicut recensito epistolarum libro diligens lector inueniet.” Google Scholar

7 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage from 248 or 249 until his martyrdom in 258, never modified or retracted his views on baptism before dying. For a possible explanation of this confusion, see Foley, and Holder, , Bede: A Biblical Miscellany (Liverpool, 1999), 153 n. 6.Google Scholar

1 This lament occurs in the responsories edited under the name of Gregory the Great, in PL 78:768. See Frank, H., “Die Bezeugung eines Karsamstagsresponsoriums,” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 16 (1974): 150–53.Google Scholar

1 That is, πεπυρωμένον and πεπυρωμένα. Google Scholar